Year after ruling: Right gloats, left vows fight

The first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was marked Friday in classically Washington fashion — with protests, press conferences, dueling panel discussions and talk of a new effort by liberal groups to expose some of the conservative nonprofit groups that took advantage of the ruling to spend millions of dollars on political ads.

Supporters of the decision did a low-key victory lap, praising it in panels, press releases and a slickly produced video featuring majestic orchestral music playing over clips of news footage from the GOP’s landslide midterm election victories interspersed with endorsements from, among others, super lawyer Ted Olson, who argued the case and in the video called it “maybe the most important case in history.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

In fact, a year after the court handed down its sweeping 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the ruling’s full impact still isn’t entirely clear despite impassioned responses from liberals who decry it for empowering corporations to buy elections and conservatives who praise it as a triumph of free speech.

But the rhetoric and tactics in the continuing battle over Citizens United have shifted, particularly in the two-and-a-half months since Election Day.

Republicans, who once downplayed its potential impact or presented it as equally helpful to Democrats, increasingly acknowledge that it has been a major boon to them. And Democrats are privately conceding likely defeat in their legislative efforts to blunt the ruling, and are now concentrating on planning their own groups to both compete with — and investigate — conservative groups such as American Crossroads that sprouted during the 2010 campaign.

“There are going to be some folks that are beginning to research who’s behind a lot of these groups and try to expose them for supporting special interests … and to demonstrate that a lot of these groups are abusing their tax status,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told POLITICO Thursday night. “This is an area where there is a lot of discussion going on.”

Van Hollen said he’s not involved with any of the initiatives, which he described as “private efforts or nonprofit efforts” that would be funded by big donors similar to participants in the Democracy Alliance, and would be separate from planned Democratic groups that intend to spend heavily on campaign advertising.

“None of us believe in unilateral disarmament,” said Van Hollen, who saw his effort to pass legislation last year to blunt the impact of the ruling die in the Senate. “We’re one year from the day of a decision that many of us think was a very dark day for American democracy and a lot of the predictions about what would happen have come true. … This decision sort of opened the floodgates, and we can expect a lot more down the road unless something’s done about it.”

The landmark court decision stemmed from a lawsuit against the FEC brought by a previously obscure conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United, which alleged its free speech rights were violated when the FEC moved to block it from using corporate cash to promote and air “Hillary: The Movie,” a feature-length movie harshly critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Readers' Comments (489)

Does this give a piece of paper the same rights a human? Since a corporation is nothing more than a piece of paper.

I do not take issue with the ruling itself. I do believe the person within the corporation deciding to invest the shareholders should be required to seek approval from the people that own the company (the shareholders). I also believe they should be required to make full disclosure to their shareholders how much and on what they spent it on? The spending this last time around seemed to be more for the benefit of the people running the corporation than it was for the corporation or it's owners.

They insisted on calling political campaigning and the funding thereof free speech and are unhappy because free speech is free for all. Spare me. Either eliminate political contributions 100% or deal with it. All this does is enrich media, nobody much cares about the ever increasing ad onslought.

Republicans, who once downplayed its potential impact or presented it as equally helpful to Democrats, are increasingly acknowledging that it has been a major boon to them. And Democrats are privately conceding likely defeat in their legislative efforts to blunt the ruling, and are now concentrating on planning their own groups to both compete with – and investigate – the conservative groups like American Crossroads that sprouted during the 2010 campaign.

At least we're being honest now that this ruling did what it was intended to do, which is to give an advantage to Republicans. Now the Democrats will just in and create their own groups and the electoral process will be even further perverted by corporate money.

Does this give a piece of paper the same rights a human? Since a corporation is nothing more than a piece of paper.

The ruling is sound and as necessary for balance considering all the leftist socialists who just want to spread the wealth around. Even Obama has backed off that from his 2008 statement. He's now moving to the middle, thanks to the "peoples' vote in the midterms ousting 60 plus Democrats.

It's nice to see that corporations are treated as individuals would be ,however excessively taxed, now let's get that tax number down to 26% or under and we'll see some economic growth. That and Obama has got to work on the 500 Billion trade deficit. He's not doing much for the economy these days, but the House sure is humming along getting things done for the better. It's a rosier outlook after the midterms than when the Liberals were running us into bankrupcy with spending.

Birther" campaign for presidential nomination roils the political landscape

Republican Presidential CandidateAndy Martin says the mumbling and fumbling of Hawai'i Governor Neil Abercrombie is fueling a firestorm for disclosure of Hawaii's secret files on President Barack Obama's origins

Martin is actively soliciting Tea Party/conservative support and says the fact that he is willing to stand up for conservative issues early in the primary/caucus process makes his campaign a rallying point for public doubts about Barack Obama's "origins"

"If the other Republican presidential candidates are afraid to take the 'Obama issues,' Martin asks, "How can we trust them to tackle the massive problems facing ordinary Americans?"

(NEW YORK)(January 21, 2011) Republican Presidential Candidate Andy Martin says that the refusal of his potential Republican presidential opponents to address nationwide concerns about President Barack Obama's hidden "origins" is fueling support for Martin as he tries to move from being a "dark horse" to a "post horse" in the race for the Republican nomination.

"Ever since I formally announced as the first Republican Party presidential candidate, the issue of Barack Obama's 'missing' birth certificate has become a hot button issue," Martin says. "Rush Limbaugh was all over it today.

"The 'Fab Four' Republican Party presidential prospects are staying 'mum' on Obama's mother's birthplace for her son," Martin notes. "Why would the 'proud papa,' Kenyan Obama Senior, ignore his own home address and list his in-laws' address on his 'son's' birth certificate? Is that usual? Is that the way 'married couples' usually operate? Of course not. The whole story of Obama's birth is a complete fairy tale.

"Anne Dunham left Hawai'i days after her son was born. College records show her in WashingtonState. Dunham and Obama never lived together as husband and wife. So why is Obama fooling us?

"Obama the father, of course, was already legally married in Kenya when his Hawaiian 'son' was born. I have never heard President Obama tell his Kenyan 'relatives' that they are illegitimate. So Obama-the-son was born out of wedlock. Or, if you prefer, Barack Obama Senior engaged in a bigamous marriage with his Hawaiian 'wife.' Perhaps that's the source of President Obama's 'shame.' People would forgive Obama if he told us the truth; what we can't accept is his relentless lying.

"Hawaii's prevarication about the missing birth certificate issue is a colossal political scam. Governor Neil Abercrombie is single-handedly undermining Obama's reelection prospects," Martin says. "Show me and show the American people the original document," Martin demands.

"I'd like to talk about my other credentials and qualifications to be president, in addition to fighting for the truth about Obama. But in the timeless words of boxer Joe Louis, Obama 'can run but he can't hide.' We'll stay on the Birther issue until Obama says 'uncle.' Or is it daddy?"

Matterhorn: What does your reply have to do with my question. A corporation is a piece of paper and we are saying a piece of paper has the same rights under the constitution?

I don't disagree with the ruling and I do not agree with your blindness that the current house will be any better for the corporate or econiomic health of our country than the previous. The $500 billion trade deficit is from the fact that we have allowed the people running the corporations for their own greed to out source manufacturing to other countries. Obama can not make a collective dent in that area. No president can. He is not the one buying your clothes and other products that say made in China. We are as much at fault and have more power to fix the trade deficit and the economy than the government does. As long as our greed makes us shortsighted enough to not realize how much the savings we get by buying everything made in China is really costing us. You might save $20 now but you just put someone else that was paying taxes their share of taxes out of work. We are all bent on blaming the unions because they make too much. We always want someone else to work for nothing. So keep up the conservative rhetoric if it makes you feel better.

What this ruling does is allow ALL groups of citizens (whether they be corporations or whatnot) to each have the freedom to spend their money supporting whoever they wish.

What the left wants is free speech for ONLY the groups they see fit to provide an exemption. (or with sufficient lobbying clout).

Hooray for equal protection under the law.

Ah yes, until the day lib groups outspend the Kochs and the right will be howling about the unfairness of it all. Kinda like Cantor whining about Reid not bringing HC repeal for a vote in the Senate. I don't remember Cantor calling for repubs to back off the filibuster while the past Congress' bills went to the Senate to die. I also seem to remember every repub in lockstep criticizing Obama, Pelosi and Reid for addressing HC first instead of jobs. Remember "Where are the jobs Mr. President?" Boehner must have uttered that question about a billion times. Well, Mr. Boehner why are you spending time on HC before jobs? Why are you making abortion a priority when people are out of work? Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?

As long as companies like GE are allowed to by TV stations like NBC and set the partisan flavor coming out of them then the SCOTUS ruling is the correct one. Those on the left would understand this if Comcast shifts NBC's view to the right alnog with several other stations leaving liberals with a minority of news outlets on their side.

The simple fact is the left counds on people being sheep and being told what to do. Now the right is also playing that game and they don't like it. Don't worry it's get so over crowded with ads from both sides it'll just get tuned out.

"but an analysis of FEC data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that independent groups spent $296 million in the 2010 midterms, with conservative groups spending more than twice as much as liberal ones, compared with $69 million in the 2006 midterms, when liberal groups spent nearly twice as much as conservative ones"

The REAL story is in the last part of the sentence. Liberal groups had twice as much money to spend and now they don't. Which is why this regime is now going after Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas. Libs will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda.

The REAL story is in the last part of the sentence. Liberal groups had twice as much money to spend and now they don't. Which is why this regime is now going after Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas. Libs will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda.

Uh no, Scalia and Thomas are being scrutinized because of their appearances at conservative assocations with direct ties to political fundraising in addition to Virginia Thomas' ties to the TP.